Back
2008 Supreme(UK) 368
B. C. KANDPAL, J.
Smt. Rabiya – Appellant
Vs.
Ali Hussain & Ors – Respondents
S. A. No. 13410/2001,
Decided on : 18-8-2008
Arvind Vashisththa for Appellant:A. K. Sharma. Lok Pal Singh for Respondents.
The burden of proof in cases involving illiterate individuals, particularly women, rests on the party seeking to sustain a transaction with them, and it must be established that the document was explained to them and that they understood it.
Headnote:
C. P. C. - Appeal against dismissal of suit for cancellation of sale deed - Section 100 - Summary of Acts and Sections: C. P. C. Section 100 - The court analyzed the burden of proof in cases involving illiterate individuals and the special protection afforded to them. The judgment discussed the application of the burden of proof in the context of a transaction involving a pardanasheen lady and emphasized the need to establish that the document was explained to her and that she understood it. The court's decision was influenced by the legal principle that the burden of proof rests on the party seeking to sustain a transaction with a pardanasheen lady.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, alleging that the defendant obtained the deed through fraud. The defendant contested, claiming that the plaintiff executed a power of attorney and received the sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the burden of proof to establish the alleged power of attorney as not a result of fraud and misrepresentation lies with the defendants, as the plaintiff was an illiterate lady. The court held that the burden was wrongly shifted to the plaintiff by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sale deed, the alleged forged power of attorney, the receipt of sale consideration, ownership and possession of the disputed property, entitlement to relief, and the impact of a subsequent sale of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the special protection afforded to illiterate individuals, particularly women, in transactions and the need for the party seeking to sustain a transaction with such individuals to establish that the document was explained to them and that they understood it.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dismissing the suit were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision in view of the evidence and the legal principles discussed in the judgment.
This appeal. under Section 100 of the C. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-2001 passed by Civil Judge (S. D.) Roorke thereby dismissing First Appeal No. 5/2001. Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain & others. thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-1-2001 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissing Suit No. 155/96. Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain & others.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff /appellant filed a suit against the defendants/respondents for cancellation of sale deed dated 10-5-1995. registered in Sub Registrar Office. Jagadari. Roorkee at Bahi No.1. Zild 02. 25 on 22-5-1995. According to the plaint case the plaintiff Smt. Rabiya inherited the property. shown in the Schedule of property given at the foot of the plaint, from her father late Sri Ahamad and now she is owner in possession of the said land. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3, Ali Hassan and Abdul Hassan, respectively are the sons of her great grand father and Smt. Raqiba. defendant No.2. is the wife of Ali Hassan (defendant No.1). The defendant No. 1 in order to grab the property of the plaintiff, got prepared forged power of attorney. in the name of the plaintiff on 25-4-1995. Thereafter, the defendant No.1. Ali Hassan. on the basis of forged power of attorney, also got prepared forged sale deed with regard to the property belonging to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1.50.000/- on 10-5-1995 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also got it registered. According to the plaintiff the sale price of the disputed land in any manner could not be less than Rs. 3.00.0001-. In the sale deed the witness Tosheef is the man of the defendants and scribe is the Clerk Advocate Asif Ali It is also alleged in the plaint that there is no recital that who had actually received the sale consideration of Rs. 1.50.000/-. The further assertion of the plaintiff is that she is in actual possession of the disputed land and the forged sale deed was never acted upon. She also alleged that Roorkee Tehsil is nearer to her village and there was no occasion for her to prepare power of attorney instead of registering the sale deed directly. Therefore. the plaintiff sought a decree for cancellation of sale deed allegedly obtained by playing fraud.
3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement and admitted this fact that the plaintiff inherited the disputed property from her father late Sri Ahamad, but he alleged that the said property remained in his possession and used to plough, to sow and to harvest the crops over it upto 15-5-1995. Thereafter the disputed land was handed over to defendants 2 and 3. According to him, the plaintiff lives in her Sasural in village Ikkar which is about 30 kilometers away from village Landhora. Her husband is a labour by profession and he often used to go to Haryana and Punjab and the plaintiff also accompany him. Therefore, the disputed land was being looked after by the defendant No.1. The defendant No. 1 used to give her half of the crops obtained from the disputed land, but the plaintiff was not satisfied with it she directed him to search for a purchaser of the said land and also asked him for preparation of a power of attorney. In the month of April 1995 the plaintiff had come Roorkee for preparation I of power of attorney and its registration but there it was informed that the Collector had forbidden for doing registration of power of attorney and for that purpose permission of Collector was necessary. At this the plaintiff suggeeted that he should visit Jagadari where she will execute power of attorney in his father. Thereafter on 25-4-1995 the plaintiff got executed power of attorney in favour of defendant by free consent empowering the defendant No. 1 to act on her behalf. Before its execution the contents of power of attorney were read over and explained to the plaintiff appellant in presence of witnesses, of power of attorney namely Shri Rati Ram and Shri Shamsher Ali and a
